Reminds me of my old college days at the University of Michigan, circa 1970. Everything needed "relevant." The teachers, out of fear or their own ideology, put the word "revolution" into the titles of things.

So...the Tea Party allegedly got some Dems out and some Republicans in. Seats change and party majorities shift every election cycle or two. It could have as much to do with perennially (and rightly) unhappy voters just voting for "someone else" as to do with the Tea Party.

What actual substantive change has been effected in Washington, or in our political system? What prescription for action did the Tea Party offer to improve our national state of affairs? Both parties are in thrall to Wall Street, and OWSers who vote for establishment Dems or Tea Partiers who vote for establishment Republicans are, equally, simply "wishing".

Look at the array of conmen, fanatics, and halfwits running for President; they serve as a collective object lesson in the debilitative effects of political inbreeding and corporate money on our political system.

(I think the OWSers are less likely to vote for establishment Dems than the Tea Partiers are or were to vote for establishment Republicans, but I'm just guessing and could be wrong.)

Actually, all wars are illegal unless they are undertaken as acts of self-defense. They are, every one, concerted acts of mass murder, dismemberment, and societal destruction.

The question is not "what about the Iraq War was illegal?", but what about any wars we've ever fought have been legal?

I've suggested in this space that WWII might be considered to have been a legal war, but others--who, astoundingly, seem to think Hitler and Japan were less an imminent threat to us than the scattered and few who made up Al Qaeda and their ilk--have pushed back with arguments that have half-convinced me that WWII may have been no more legal than our other wars. A recent column by Arthur Silber drives the point home quite effectively:

A recent column by Arthur Silber drives the point home quite effectively:

Yes, he did. Apparently, that Americans used slurs against the Japanese after we were attacked by them -- the war was illegal. And because we didn't sell them things they wanted, well, heck we ASKED for them to bomb us.

Reminds me of my old college days at Yale, circa 1980. Departments put out "guts" (easy courses), sometimes with sexy titles, so they could bump up departmental enrollment and get more money for the grad students who did the actual work (including teaching the real courses). Unfortunately for the undergraduates, the strategy of taking gut courses with sexy titles works better if your diploma says Yale (or UMichigan); as you move down the food chain, future employers start to ask what you really learned.

And even at Yale, you'd have to be pretty stupid to actually major in Social and Cultural Analysis, as opposed to majoring in Econ and picking up some easy A's in the joke departments. Majoring in that stuff would be like marrying, rather than merely patronizing, a prostitute.

"Apparently, that Americans used slurs against the Japanese after we were attacked by them -- the war was illegal."

I think you need to reread his column again if that's what you think his point is.

But, I am not necessarily in full agreement with him. I simply point out that several commenters here have made essentially the same argument--that we provoked the Japanese into attacking us to give FDR the rationale to insert America into the war--and this has caused me less certainty than I had that WWII was our one "good" or legal war.

Oh, I see you were referring to the Tea Partiers. Perhaps I lack rudimentary reading skills, that's not for me to judge...or perhaps you were less clear in your noun/pronoun agreement than you might have been.

Unfortunately for the undergraduates, the strategy of taking gut courses with sexy titles works better if your diploma says Yale (or UMichigan); as you move down the food chain, future employers start to ask what you really learned.

More fools the future employers in that case. The evidence is that the faculty at so-called quality or first rank schools are even less inclined to do the hard slog teaching of substance and are far more enamored of "creativity" than are their fellow academics at East Podunk U.

I think you need to reread his column again if that's what you think his point is.

Why are you attempting to commit a crime against humanity by asking anybody to read that gibberish TWICE?

But, I am not necessarily in full agreement with him. I simply point out that several commenters here have made essentially the same argument--that we provoked the Japanese into attacking us to give FDR the rationale to insert America into the war--and this has caused me less certainty than I had that WWII was our one "good" or legal war.

Again, we didn't sell them what they wanted --- so it was our fault.

Well, you do always blame America first. Even when attacked, we probably had it coming.

Hey, I bet the Ukranians did something to warrant a famine, too.

Oh, I see you were referring to the Tea Partiers. Perhaps I lack rudimentary reading skills, that's not for me to judge...or perhaps you were less clear in your noun/pronoun agreement than you might have been.

Given that you specifically tied one group to the establishment Republicans, no, the problem was in your comprehension.

The list of things you don't know is endless, even were we to limit the set to topics you comment on. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was a diversion, their goal was to take over American, British, and Dutch colonies, and control China. Given the Japanese treatment of similar conquered peoples this would have resulted in additional tens of millions of deaths had the US not gone to war.

But according to you these millions don't count when there's a chance to indict America and thus show yourself the moral gold standard.

By the way, why don't you link to the statute you're using to determine which wars are "illegal"?

It's interesting you buy into the nonsense FDR baited the Japanese but claim the Fast and Furious motivations couldn't be gun control. I'm betting since WWII enjoys such modern support an indictment of it is a criticism of America generally. Given that it fits your blame America first views there's no reason to search too hard for reasons to resist the temptation to sign on.

You have to hand it to NYU on the marketing. You have a bunch of college kids protesting in the city, because they have massive school debt with no jobs to pay it off. NYU sees a target rich environment. Hey kids, go apply for some more debt, and we'll give you heaping of more college classes that won't ever help you get a job. We laugh, but I'm sure those classes will get filled. Further, if you did a survey, I'm sure most of the participants will have either a scholarship or loan.

This is a tremendous opportunity wasted. I actually think a class on the Occupy Wall Street movement could be used very effectively to illuminate mankind's not-short history of economies that used "horizontal" organizational structures--and largely failed. Let students connect today's headlines with similar movements throughout history.

If there's one group of people that could use a reality check when it comes to cultural utopias and leaderless power structures, it's well-off college students. (I nearly had an accidental bowel movement on reading that NYU's tuition is $1,100 per credit hour! That's $500 less that my alma mater's per-semester tuition!)

But to frame the OWS movement within the context of "the history and politics of debt" is silly. OWS is not remarkable because it's reacting against debt and the power structures that allow people to go into debt. That's old hat. OWS was notable solely for its organizational structure; nearly every news item on the movement mentioned its General Assembly and nebulous organization. That should be the emphasis of the class.

Uh, Marshall, I'm not arguing against our having a reason to fight the Japanese, or to enter WWII...if America has had a war that was warranted and necessary, it was WWII. However, some--including some among your fellow commenters here--have taken issue with that point of view and offer arguments to suggest just what Silber does in his column...that we provoked Japan intentionally, but could have chosen not to and could have avoided entering that war.

I don't even know that Silber suggests we should not have fought in WWII, (though he may believe that to be so); I take as his main point that we were hardly innocent, unknowing lambs struck by a sneak attack for which there was no expectation or catalyst. We--or FDR--if this line of argument is factually accurate, had reason to expect an attack by Japan, and could have forewarned those at Pearl Harbor or possibly even forestalled the attack altogether had we handled things differently.

Having read Silber off and on, I even suggest his larger point is to show that the Democrats--even the sainted FDR--are in no way to be be seen as any less bloodthirsty, brutal, or opportunistic than the party we have been told is the war-mongering party, the Republicans.

The arguments are not without some merit, so I can consider their merits without assuming that point of view.

I am hard pressed to think of any other wars aside from WWII--certainly not any other modern wars we have fought--that were necessary or warranted.

murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority

Note the part about legal excuse. There is a legal excuse in war. Therefore, you cannot prosecute war under murder statutes without first changing the law. And then, because of the ex post facto protections we have under the Constitution, you could only prosecute for future wars. I say this even though such a change in law will never happen.

So, there you have it, Cook: war is not illegal under your own ridiculous argument.

War is legal. QED. You lose. You are stupid. You are simply making things up. You have pretend Robert Cook laws from Pretend Robert Cook Land. It's so sad for you.

"Murder" is a crime. Crimes are defined by law. The murder laws clearly do not cover killing done in war.

Now, you might argue that you're talking about "murder" conceptually, not strictly legally. But, then that doesn't really make the case that war is "illegal." Unless you believe that legality is not determined by the law, a contradiction.

"...that's right up there with you saying that being a Christian is all about being NICE to people."

That is its essence, yes.

But it's so much deeper than your sneering condescension would suggest...before one can truly "be nice to people"--that is, before one can sacrifice one's own comfort and prerogatives in order to help the downtrodden of the earth, one has to become substantially, wholly transformed from the selfish human being one was, that we all are.